Primaries

Talking to several people at Drinking Liberally yesterday, there’s a real question of where the local netroots should be headed. A lot of people are glad that the netroots got involved in the Burner-Tom primary (moreso than I was, as I was still undecided if leaning). And there is some discussion of primary challengers to entrenched Democrats in the legislature who aren’t pulling their weight.

Many Seattle Democrats and other Democrats in safe seats aren’t doing their part. It’s not just about liberal issues; most of the caucus from safe seats votes correctly most of the time. But too much of the leadership is coming from some more suburban swing districts. I’m not sure, for instance, why the impeachment resolution had to come from a suburban first term Democrat. I’m not sure why the leader on drug policy reform is a suburban first term Democrat. I’d like the safe Democrats to do more of this, and if they aren’t willing, I’d like to see them replaced.

That said, I’m not as convinced about the netroots’ ability to turn a primary as some people. We’ve still got a fairly small audience, and while we can raise some money, we aren’t enough on our own. We can maybe influence some media, but we’re still only writing to a small number of voters. We’ll also almost certainly be more divided than in a general election contest, as some people will inevitably take the side of the incumbents who got elected for a reason, and more bloggers will stay out.

Finally, there’s the question of who to primary. Ultimately, it would be the choice of whoever is willing to run. But given the problems above, we couldn’t support it if all the deadwood got challenged at the same time. Some will be better candidates, and some will run against worse incumbents.

You mean a one-term suburban first-term Democrat, don’t you? Trust me, Eric Oemig maybe got the netroots all orgasmic, but his consituents felt betrayed, and Demos in the legislature, as well as every newspaper on the planet, including The Stranger, thought his stunt was show-off grand-standing.

If your local King Co Dems aren’t turning up the heat for ya, how ’bout this: Volunteer and donate to some nice PIERCE County Candidates in tough swing districts, where your little extra push might be what it takes to knock off a neocon/batshit crazy Incumbent (read: Joyce McDonald, Mike Carrell, either Roach, etc). We need your help, and if enough fighters get down to Olympia, we’ll have the pull to smack some sense into your lazy Seattle lawmakers.

First of all, the caucuses plan who introduces bills on hot buttons issues and who “leads” on them for campaign purposes. You can’t just look at it on the surface level.

Secondly, the local netroots isn’t even close to being powerful enough to take a legislator out. Any effort would be crushed by the Chopp/Pelz machine and then they would likely become extremely hostile. A losing effort just to have the State Party pissed at us? Very bad idea in my opinion.

Also, there isn’t really any anger at these members who aren’t “doing their part” in the local LD/county organizations (with a few exceptions of course, such as Sheldon and to a lesser extent Jacobson). In order for such a primary to be successful, you’d have to create an entire new volunteer and fund raising base and somehow make it defeat a very well organized and well-funded establishment. So again, a losing effort that would just lead to the establishment being pissed at us.

I’m not sure there’s someone better than Chopp waiting in the wings either for speaker or for his seat.

@2

And she supports payday lenders. Not sure how tight her district is.

@4

Certainly, I’d like to take out more Republicans. But we’ve got almost two thirds in both houses for goodness sake. How many Seattle Dems whose districts rejected 747 are going to vote for 1% tomorrow?

With the primary moved earlier, we’ll have a better opportunity to push for more and better Democrats next year. But we really do need both.

Is that what’s pushing this idea? I suspect so. I don’t think the netroots can take out Democratic incumbents. The netroots has limited reach and power. What it CAN do successfully is swing close races. That’s where efforts should be focused. If the netroots can help Darcy take out do-nothing congressman Reichert (who has been in office for two years and still hasn’t hugged a rabbit!), that’s huge.

Who’d want to hug a filthy, flea-biten rodent when what you should do is skin him out, toss him the pan with flour and seasonings, and fry him up? After all, that’s what rabbits were put on earth for…that and apparel made from their skins.

@1: YES! Boot Frank Chopp! He is my “representative” but he hardly represents his district, because he doesn’t have to. I would at least like him to wake up and remember that, uh, HE HAS CONSTITUENTS other than the Democratic Party.

Mostly I am bitter because I wrote to him (about condo conversion, an important issue in his district), and he never wrote back. Then I wrote again saying I had written and never heard back, and… he never wrote back. What the hell does he pay his staff for?

Piper @ 9 (with all due apologies to Roger Rabbit) I had stuffed rabbit leg at a small restaurant in Ballard a week or two back. It was remarkable. As the Colonel said, “finger-licking good.” I didn’t even have to put catsup on it.

Those of us on the left have made apologies for our liberalism for far too long. At least since the Reagan years, and probably before that, we have failed to stand up and confidently declare who we are and what we are about. Liberals have been branded in the media as effete and unAmerican. Somehow, we let the media, and rightwing politicians, get away with that. In reality, we are the heart of America, and our views are in the dead center of the American consensus. When Democrats in a blue state like Washington cannot forcefully push our values, it is distressing. Frank Chopp could do a better job. We could be a leader among states, pressing innovative solutions to what troubles all states. I would like to see our legislative (and executive) Democrats grow some balls (figuratively speaking, of course).

Piper @ 17 Someone else made the reservations, so I have trouble with the name. It started with a V, just one word, and is on Ballard Avenue. Sorry, I can’t do better than that. The boar was also outstanding.

“Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected. There are no American infidels in Baghdad. There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad.”

Puddy @ 18 I suppose, from some perspective, the words “forcefully push our values” could sound elitist. I would suggest, however, that forcefully pushing values is what elected officials should do. I would rather have legislators standing up for what they believe is right, and voting that way, than have politicians sticking a wet finger up in the air and trying to figure out which way the wind temporarily blows. Principles matter, and I’d like to know what principles my elected representatives hold. I don’t believe that is elitist. Legislators who govern by speculating what the electorate might want at any given moment generally get it wrong. I’ll vote for someone I disagree with from time to time if that individual displays a predictable pattern of voting, based on his or her own beliefs.

Well as I see it we should write in a special law. If a district voted against a specific tax reducing referendum and it passed, then that district is not bound by the rate reduction and will pay at the higher rate.

So if your district voted against 747, then your district will pay the banked fees and the standard 5-6% yearly uptick rate. HEY IT’S A DEMOCRACY. You make your choice at the ballot box, so live with it. Since Seattlites like paying higher taxes and fees go for it. I’m sure Goldy can lower his thermostat another few degrees to “stay warmer” fuming over his higher voted in taxes.

What is the Democrat position on this ABC News (Oops… vast wingnut (TM) conspiracy) story:

CHARLES GIBSON: Finally, we don’t normally have birth announcements on this broadcast, but tonight, an exception. The new arrival is just 48 hours old, and we introduce you to her because earlier this month, we introduced you to her mother, who spent her pregnancy fighting to save her baby’s life and her own. In the course of just a few days last April, Linda Sanchez learned she was pregnant, and that she had breast cancer.

LINDA SANCHEZ, Cancer patient: It’s a lot to think about April.

GIBSON: Her doctor told her she could abort the baby, but Linda found specialists who told her there was another choice, that she could treat the cancer and carry her child to term.

Dr. Jennifer Litton, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: Yes, chemotherapy is toxic, but what we found is that when given in the second and third trimester, it appears to be safe.

GIBSON: And so Linda underwent several rounds of a specific type of chemotherapy. And by early this month, her tumor had shrunk 60 percent. Then, this week, Linda checked into a hospital, labor was induced, and on Monday-

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The delivery went picture perfect.

GIBSON: Meet Isabella Marie Sanchez, five pounds, two ounces. 18 inches long, and born with a full head of hair. Just the 70th baby born in what was once a controversial program for pregnant women with breast cancer.

SANCHEZ: She’s something. I’m just really happy I finally have her here. Because I felt like I waited forever.

GIBSON: Linda knows this is not the end of her battle with cancer, but she is optimistic.

SANCHEZ: I’ve got about four more sessions of chemo at every three weeks, and then, after that is surgery, and after surgery, we’re gonna do radiation. And that should be it.

GIBSON: Mother and child, Linda and Isabella, are expected to go home from the hospital this evening.

Puddy Commentary: May the God I serve bless the mother and child. May mom beat the cancer, watch her daughter child grow up, and may she see her grandchildren if Jesus delays is Second Coming until then!

“Should the Salvation Army be able to require its employees to speak English? You wouldn’t think that’s controversial. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the charity and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies.”

YLB – The Clueless One ™, yes God blesses even you. It says in the Good Book He blesses the unjust, so you too are getting a blessing. I said since you can’t process words, may she live to see her grandchildren.

HL is correct, Stupes. A concentrated, corporate owned media gets skepticism from me. There’s a multitude of examples where it serves power instead of speaking truth to it. I’m thankful for the truth that squeaks through but it’s getting harder to find, day by day.

Yet a paranoiac like you is programmed to trash it in total to serve your degenerate agenda. You trash truth (because it has a liberal bias) and you ignore the MSM when it props up your chimp in the White House (it just can’t be happening, according to you.)

No end of entertainment from you Stupes – the radical feminist paranoia and the evil, MSM conspiracy.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.